How is it possible to maintain respect as a journalist when you self-admit that only 80 percent of what you report on is accurate? And other estimates are far lower. There is myriad media critique of Drudge, example. How does he get away with this? Why does his audience keep coming back.
It's my view that if his major source of viewers wasn't coming from those looking for his aggregational services, he would be out of luck. Most people visit his site because of his ability to collect breaking news, as quick as the quickest. Good lord it's marred by his reporting though. Scandal after scandal has discredited this man's work, and yet he stays afloat. I suppose it helps to be so well connected to those in the mainstream media. It's not uncommon for those journalists who could criticise Drudge end up sticking their necks out for him. Why? Power and influence. Even the independent media should be scared of criticising Drudge. For a small online periodical or blog to be linked by the Drudge Report could crash their servers. Such is the volume of traffic on Drudge's terribly designed website (another thing that baffles me as to why he's still in business.)
Solutions? Simple, forget about your journalistic goals and ambitions and be a journalist: speak truth to power. Sound unrealistic? My advice is to adopt the old anarchist saying, be realistic, demand the impossible.
No comments:
Post a Comment